IN RE: U.S. Navy Variable Reenlistment Bonus Litigation

| Case MDL No. 224 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 10f3 : . B
| : IN RE U.S. NAVY VARIABLE REENLISTMENT BONUS LIT. ~~ 1405 i
’ : Cite as 407 F.Supp. 1405 (1978) - a 4
| j Beduse of the proximity of the pro- :
| C et . posed Yransferce courtd, selection of any In re U. S. NAVY VARIABLE REEN- :	| B one of hem would ngt seriously preju- LISTMENT BONUS LITIGATION. :	i ice any\party. On palance, we believe 3
E that the Aliddle Distifict of North Caroli- No. 224. : =
na is pref rable. Si ce Smith resides in Judicial Panel on Multidistrict 8
i that distrid, a substhintial amount »f the Litigation. a {; relevant digeovery Vill occur there. Fur- 3
| ) ther, there Yire mofe actions pending in Feb. 10, 1976. } : 1
"that district\than fn any other. 3 : : 4
It is thereflre ofdered that the actions Plaintiff in three actions alleging 2
listed on the Yollpwing Schedule A and breaches of contracts by reason of fail- 2
: pending.in dislridts other than the Mid- Ur¢ of Navy to pay reenlistment bonuses zg
dle District of\Forth Carolina be, and moved to transfer all “actions to the 8
: . the same hereby are, transferred to the Southern District of California, in which 3
| . Middle District fff North Carolina and, four actions were pending, for coordinat-
with the conser Yof that court, assigned ed or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
| to, the Honorapld Hiram H. Ward for Defendants and plaintiffs in 17 actions :
: . coordinated or feohsolidated pretrial pro- opposed the motion. The Judicial Panel 3
! - * ceedings pursdantl to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 ©O0 Multidistrict Litigation held that Fy
oo with’ the actiofis pinding in that district transfer to a single forum would neither - §
. and listed on [Schedule A. serve the convenience of the parties and 2
4 their witnesses nor promote the just aud 5
- ~ fscreoule A efficient conduct ofthe itigotion where : :	Lo oo appeals were pending in two circuits g
DOCKET NO. 232 which could have a E ibetantial if not 2
Easter District of Nogth Carolina dispositive effect on all the actions pend- z
£ Joseph F. Smith fv. Akzona, Inc. § Civil Action ing in districts within those circuits, and :
% “J © | 10: 75-0026-CIV-8 1 stions of law rather than common §
® 3 © WestgrnDistrictofNort Carofina questions of fact were significantly pre- :: ) Joseph F. Srfith v. American Eivil Action ponderant. - : E
5 EB Barmag Corp. 0. C-C-75-238 Motion denied. £
= : Co : Joseph F. Smifh v. Scragg North Ril Action } E
’ oo . America, Inc. Ng. C-C-75-239 1. Courts &=277.2 BY:
. " Middie District of North Cagplina Transfer of multidistrict actions, for 3
Joseph F. Stith v. ARCT, Inc. Civif Action breach of contract by Navy in failure to g
No. }~75-316-G pay reenlistment bonuses to plaintiffs, to pi
. a Joseph F. fSmith v.- Burlington Civil Kction the Southern District of California in “i
ny Industries, gnc. No. C-75-315-G which four actions were pending, would i
"Joseph F. Smith v. Macfield Civil Action not serve the convenience of the parties :
Texturing, Inc. No. C-75-317-G and their witnesses or promote the just :: co and efficient conduct of the litigation H
: ‘ where appeals were pending before H
Lo : Court of Appeal in two circuits and dis- :
Co W "position of those appeals could have a :
oo substantial if not dispositive effect on all ithe actions pending in districts within. © §
. those circuits, and where questions of i
law rather than common questions of i
: fact were significantly preponderant. 28 i
: ' : US.C.A. § “1407. :
the transferee judge. The scope of the coordi- transferee judge.” In re Molinaro Catanzaro
nated or consolidated pretrial proceedings and Patent Litigation, 402 F.Supp. 1404 (Jud.Pan.
| _ : . the extent to which discovery is permitted are Mult.Lit.1975). ; Ve
| : matters exclusively within the control of the } | : 3	Co 2

En Case MDL No. 2244 Igepunenis, Filedfi§81/15 Page 2 of 3 a. oo
fu (406 [RUNES J VE REESUE BN PS ST :
ow 2. Courts &=277.2 oo In mid-1974, Congress climinated the
i Trans{er of actions {or consolidated mandated payment of the VRB. Each
Sw i pretrial proceedings is unwarranted plaintiff whose reenlistment was to com-
' . where questions of law rather than com- mence on June 1, 1974, or within the
. ~ mon questions of fact ave significantly following four years, was advised by the
preponderant. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1407. Navy that it was no longer obligated to
| mr pay the VRB. The Navy took the posi-
— ; Before ALFRED P. MURRAH*, tion that Congress’ action was retroas-
Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM, tive, thereby negating the VRB provi-
| EDWARD WEINFELD*, EDWIN A. sions in any reenlistinent agreement exe- o
| ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JO- cated prior to June 1974. Nevertheless,
; "SEPH S. LORD, III, and STANLEY A. Plaintiffs were: required by the Navy to
WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel. reenlist pursuant to their agreements,
| and any plaintiffs refusing to do so were
OPINION AND ORDER - subject to court-martial proceedings.
PER CURIAM. All the actions allege breaches of con-
This litigation consists of 25 actions tract by the United States, the Navy and :Lee . LS plaintiffs’ commanding officers, and sue
pending In nine various federal istrict for one or both of two remedies—the
i . courts: cight m the Distret ol South payment of the VRB or the cancellation
Carolina; five mn the District of Hawaii; of the reenlistment’ contracts. Four of :
lo. four in the Southern District of Galifor- yp7) oo purport to be class actions: . :
| oa three mw the Western Distriet hy one on behalf of a nationwide class ofi Washington; an one cacti am Wie North goivice personnel affected by the elimi-
ern, Central. and Eastern Districts Nf nation of the VRB and the other three oT ’
| California, the District of Idaho and the on behalf of regional classes, :	lorthern District of Florida. ee i pp os .
| Lo le oo Plaintiffs in three of the actions moveAl plaintiffs are United States Navy the Panel for an order transferring all
I. ) personnel who enfistod In shatIv actions to the Southern District of Cali-- At or about the time of their initial en- fornia Jor coordinated or consolidated :
listment plaintiffs allegedly were in- pretrial prococdings pursuant to 23	LN or PA ) vo ,... U8.C § 14071 All defendants and
a= duced by the Navy to ApTee Prospecuve oy1.intiffs in seventeen of the actions op-ly to reenlist for an additional two or i . Rad
. pose the motion. :
three-year period subsequent to the ter- So
mination of their original active-duty {11 While these actions may involve
tenures. As partial consideration for some common questions of fact, we find ’
their reenlistment, plaintiffs were to be that at this time their transfer to a sin-
trained in certain military occupational gle forum under Section 1407 will nei- .
specialities for which the Navy had a ther serve the convenicnee of the parties :
critical need. Upon the actual com- and their witnesses nor promote the just :
mencement of their reenlistments, plain- and efficient conduct of this litigation. : }
tilfs were to receive the additional com- Movants maintain that transfer of
pensation of a “Variable Reenlistment these aclions is necessary because they
Bonus" (hercinafter referred to as share common factuxl and legal issues
“VRB, which now is valued by plain- pertaining to whether the Navy can : N
tiffs at approximately $4,0600-$6,500 per withheld the VEB from those service
service person. peepie who reenlisted for another two or
* Judges Murrah and Weinfeld were unable to Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
attend the Panel hearing and. therefore, took Mareover, after the transfer motion was filed. *
! : no part in the consideration or decision of this we were advised that oue’ of the actions in-
| matter, cluded in the motion, Akin, was on appeal to
: I. In addition to the 20 actions now before the the United States Court of Appeals for the }
: Panel, a related action, Canin, is on appeal Ninth Circoit. ’
Co and under submission with the United States : ’
{
I hid . ° .

Case MDL No. 224 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 3 :
IN + i. 5. NAVY VARIABLE REENLISTMENT BONUS LIT. 1407 oo
{ - “Cite as 407 F.Supp. 1105 (1976)	ke bY - . . . ) PRY .
|! , three-year period to obtain, in part, their Harry Ing Scarborough, HI v. Civil Action
bonuses. Movants also urge centraliza- Schiesinger. et ak No. CV74-585-N
oo tion in order to prevent any possibility of Henry D. Ruble v. Schlesinger, on 272 No '
inconsistent determinations regarding ) Co oo
| . District of Hawaii
cluss, other pretrial and appellate rul-
! in : Earl B. Collins, et al. v. Schles- Civil Actioni mgs. - inger, et al. . No. 75-0053-P oo
| We are not persuaded, however, that ‘Bradley W. Johnson, et al. v. Civil Action
| transfer of this litigation in its present James R. Schiesinger, etal. Ho. 75-0079-P
| posture is appropriate. Of the 25 actions Joe L. Aprill, et al. v. James Civil Action
now before us, sixteen were filed in dig- R. Schlesinger, et al. No. 75-0142-P = .. ~~
| tricts within the Ninth Circuit, eight Daniel Lee Armour, et al. v. Civil Action :
] oo were filed in districts within the Fourth ames R. Schlesinger, et al. No. 75-0021 : :
i Circuit, and one was filed in a district Nell € Achterhof, et al. v. Til Rction	: : cer: . oo. . . James R, Schlesinger . 75- :
| within the Fifth Circuit. Since appeals w 9 District of ° :| in this litigation are presently pending estern DistrictofWashington . }| : before the Courts of Appeal for the award w Braswell et al. v. il Action os
| . Fourth and Ninth Circuits, and since the re i ) :	J Lo . R - Robert Alan Borschowa v. Wil- Civil Action LT
| disposition of those appeals could have a yi.) Middendorf, 11 : No. 75-5995
| - - substantial if not dispositive effect on all gyug a Birdsall v. United Civil Action :	: the actions pending in districts within States of America, et al. * No. 75-5108 .
| those circuits, leaving only a single ac- District of South Carolina Ca
tion in another jurisdiction, we believe angrew C. Agnew, Jr., et al. v. Civil Action
! : . that the most prudent course to follow is James R. Schlesinger, et al. ~~ No. 75-1624 Lo
i } . to deny transfer under Section 1407. Jesse R. Bailey, et al. v. Vin- Civif Action | .
Cr R cent Sylvester, et al. No. Civ. 75-9
. [2] Even asswming, arguendo, that :
his liti . d . d by Earl Lloyd Alderfer, et al. v. Civil Action :Ce this itigation was not ominate Y 3P- James R, Schiesinger, et al. No. 74-1854 .
: ( pellate activity, on the basis	of the ,, 00 A Crawford, et al v. Civil Action :
5, ) . record before us, we are of the view that frederick N. Margot, et al. No. Civ. 75-227
|< . questions of law rather than common pruce Edward Blockus v. James Civil Action
- . questions of fact are significantly pre- Schlesinger Ho. Civ. 75-962 :
msn © N ponderant and, hence, Section 1407 treat- = Thomas H. Grezeika v. James R. Civit Action : }
mm ment would in any event be unwarrant- Schlesinger, etal. No. Civ.1220 ~ °°
zc ed. Nonetheless, our denial of transfer pr itson, et al. v. James Civil Action ~~is without prejudice to the right of any chiesinger,et at No. Civ. 75-1344
"party to seek transfer under Section Sores en v. James R. Civil Action 1288
SE 1407 at a later date if he or she feels .
: that a future change in circumstances so Northern District of Florida : .
3 Ralph C. Beard, et al. v. United Civil Action
: requires. States of America, et al No. 75-561-Civ.—J-$	. : . atesof merica, et al. 0. —. ~LiIV.—d~, .
It is therefore ordered that the motion - Northern District of California :
© to transfer the actions listed on the fol- Ain A. Ki al v R Civil Acti	. vin A. eveno, et ai. v. Rog- vit Action
| lowing Schedule A be, and the SAME ers, et al. Ho. C74-2535-AJZ SE| hereby is, denied without prejudice to Eastern District of California ;j the right of any party to move for trans- 2| | i . ; Douglas A. Braye, et al. v. Civil Action
| . : fer at a later time. R Webster, et al. No, Civ. 5-74-4384 ’
SCHEDULE A ’ Central District of California - |
: Southern District of California John C. Adams, Jr. et al. v. Civil Action
; . + Steven C. Wood, et al. v. United Givil Action United States Rk Ho. CV74-1585-ALS .
| States, et al. No. CV75-0382-N District of Idaho
| Roy W. Aikin, et al. v. United Civil Action Bruce Michael Switzer, et al. v. Civil Action
. States, et al. No. CV75-0062-N United States, et al. No. Civ. 4-75-11 .
| . B *
:
ny AW
: 7
SE
j N
| : oo